Pages

Friday, 18 April 2014

Westminster's broken politics and the radical case for Scottish independence

Independence dominates, as you might expect, the Scottish
political landscape. The referendum this September is potentially of huge
consequence. It could break up the British state and establish an independent
Scotland, opening up a new set of possibilities for Scottish politics but also
impacting on politics south of the border.

Even if the 'Better Together' campaign (pro-Union alliance of Tories, Labour and Lib Dems) maintains its polling lead
right up election day, the referendum has already framed just about all political
debate in Scotland. This will continue to reverberate for years to come.

One consequence of the referendum campaign has been
increased space for discussion of political directions and alternatives. While
the official Yes Scotland campaign – with an agenda dictated by the Scottish
National Party, led by Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond - has tended to be
moderate, and the mainstream debate has been shaped by the No camp’s
scaremongering, there has been an opening up of the possibilities. Unsurprisingly, there is a marked
increase in political engagement by many ordinary Scots.

Radical Independence Campaign

The left-wing case for independence has been articulated by
a number of forces, most notably the grassroots Radical Independence Campaign
which has breathed new life into the Scottish left. It has forged new
relationships among those dedicated to linking independence to a broader social
and political vision. Radical independence is the politics of ‘Yes, and…’ – it
regards the prospect of an independent Scotland as a starting point, a platform
for articulating and campaigning for an alternative set of policies aiming
towards social justice, sustainability and greater equality.

James Foley and Pete Ramand - activists in the Radical Independence Campaign - provide a detailed critique of Westminster's broken politics in their new book, 'Yes: the radical case for Scottish independence'. They also offer a thorough case for the alternative - not merely for independence, but for a far-reaching social and economic alternative.

I hope the book finds an audience in England, where there has been a remarkable
indifference, at least until recently, to the Scottish independence question. There
continues to be a widespread failure to grasp what is at stake or what is
driving political developments.

No doubt this has been influenced by a
widespread, and complacent, assumption that it can’t really happen, that it
will all blow over and Scotland will reject independence and we will continue
with business as usual. Yet recent polls indicate that, while retaining the Union
remains the more likely outcome in September, independence is a real
possibility.

The English left is far from being immune from this
sluggishness, ignorance and conservatism. Elements of the left, especially those in the
Labour Party, are pro-Union, while others view it as mere constitutional matter
or think it should simply be left to the Scots (despite the potentially
profound opportunities independence would open up for the rest of us).

Beyond Westminster

For the radical independence activists, what drives the
movement for a Yes vote is not ‘nationalism’ but opposition to Westminster
politics and the suffocating neoliberal orthodoxy that Westminster represents.
The book’s authors note that the Yes campaign is at its strongest when it
focuses on Westminster’s failings and articulates the need for breaking from
its political consensus: cuts, privatisation, pro-US foreign policy, immigrant
bashing and a relaxed attitude to growing inequality. What’s wrong with
contemporary Britain – and the potential for alternatives to that – is the
starting point.

They also highlight the class and generational dimensions of
the independence debate, with the poor and the young being most likely to back
independence. Surveys have found near-unanimous opposition to independence
among business elites.

The UK has an electoral system that entrenches the
neoliberal orthodoxy and marginalises more progressive voices. There is a
Tory-led government despite Scotland and some English regions returning very
few Tory MPs to Westminster. Labour is constantly pulled to the right in a bid
for supposed ‘Middle England’ votes, a process reinforced by the first past the
post system, while neglecting its core support. Ukip, despite not having any
MPs, possess a media profile that enables it to exert right-wing pressure on
the mainstream, while the left is completely marginal.

Westminster is – however you look at it, whatever angle you
take – broken and very unlikely to be repaired. There is a gaping democratic deficit and the
enforcement of precisely the neoliberal policies which have enabled inequality
to grow. The authors are clear that an independent Scotland does not guarantee
a substantially different future, but that it does open up space for a
different direction.

Under devolution, Scotland has seen a handful of positive
reforms – like scrapping university fees and prescription charges – that compare
favourably with England. The SNP is politically diverse and contains a
conservative right wing, but on most policy issues it is to the left of the
Labour leadership. Scottish political debate is – with the Tories marginal and
Ukip virtually non-existent - frameddifferently to the UK level. The social democratic mainstream of
Scottish politics is a great improvement on Westminster politics and, with far
greater powers than at present, an independent Scotland could bring positive
change.

Nationalism and the British state

Independence would have repercussions for politics in the
rump UK as well as in Scotland. The foreign policy establishment has lined up
to warn of the terrible dangers of independence precisely because it will
weaken the British state and its alliance with the US. The end of Trident is
the most immediate likely effect, but the book outlines the wider challenge it
will pose to the status quo.

Foley and Ramand recall how disgust at Tony
Blair’s government over the Iraq war was a driving force behind increased
support for the SNP in the 2003 and 2007 Scottish parliament elections; without
that, the SNP may not have been able to reach the stage where it could call a
referendum on an independent Scotland.

This aspect of independence is of course closely connected
to the not insignificant matter of British nationalism – its history and its
continuing ideological import – which, the authors note, is near-invisible in
the whole referendum debate: Scottish nationalism is the object of vast amounts
of commentary, but British nationalism is an ideological ‘common sense’ and
thus rarely articulated openly. The book contains a very thoughtful discussion
of different types of nationalism, their significance, and how they have
evolved.

A central argument is that independence is not, contrary to
media myth, the same as Scottish nationalism or identity – interestingly, polls
reveal a very weak correlation between strength of Scottish identity and voting
intentions in the referendum. Foley and Ramand also demolish the myth of
‘anti-English racism’ as a driving force for independence supporters, reminding
us that more traditional and familiar forms of racist bigotry – like that
directed to the Asian community – remain the real problem in terms of racism.
Anti-racism and internationalism are at the heart of radical independence.

A radical needs agenda

For Foley and Ramand, however, the campaign for independence
is about much more than choosing Holyrood over Westminster, opting for a social
democratic mainstream over right-wing orthodoxy, or breaking from the worst
elements of neoliberalism at home and imperialism abroad. The book, like the
Radical Independence Campaign itself, is fuelled by a desire to move beyond
those limits and champion a radically more progressive vision. This thread runs
through the book, but is expressed most openly and forcefully towards the end,
including an outline of a radical needs agenda for Scotland.

The radical needs agenda is a set of demands that, as the
authors acknowledge, do not constitute a socialist society, but rather
represent a radical alternative within the constraints of capitalism. All of
them would need to be fought for, all would be resisted by powerful vested
interests, and all would (in the process of fighting for them) raise
fundamental questions about the society in which we live. It is a bold set of
alternatives that has clearly been the subject of much research, thought and
discussion; extremely well-informed and shaped by current conditions, rather
than being a generic blueprint for a better society.

Evidently one of the great advantages of the independence
debate in Scottish society has been this opening up of space to discuss the
future, allowing the Scottish left an opportunity to discuss and articulate
alternatives instead of settling for opposition to the status quo. The authors
are exceptionally good on the need for the campaign to link a critique of
existing politics and an alternative vision. They explain and criticise the
limits of the Yes Scotland campaign, and the SNP’s approach, which too often
emphasises continuity over change, and is relentlessly ‘optimistic’ in a way that lapses into the vague and vacuous. Voters
need to be convinced that the present system is broken, but also that
independence can lead to a genuine and far-reaching alternative.

This book – clearly written, coherently argued, wide-ranging
in its concerns – is a must-read for anyone who supports
independence for Scotland. It isn’t just for Scottish radicals, but of great
relevance to those of us campaigning against Westminster’s bankrupt politics
south of the border. It serves as a guide to the whole independence debate and
a polemic for a radical alternative.

1 comment:

Thanks for this thoughtful review.I am a Radical Independence Campaign member but lived in England for 20 years so agree that this is not just a book for 'Scottish' radicals and should be read by campaigners in other parts of the UK.